MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH EFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN MINNESOTA COURTS MARCH 21, 2007

HISTORY • LOCAL LEVEL RAMSEY COUNTY SUBSTANCE ABUSE INITIATIVE---1999 STEERING COMMITTEE FORMED KEY STAKEHOLDERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER COUNTY COMMISSIONER COUNTY SHERIFF DIRECTORS OF: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, HUMAN SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH.

HISTORY (cont’d) • DISTRICT WIDE CONFERENCE • FOCUS GROUPS FORMED FROM PARTICIPANTS • MADE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO STEERING COMMITTEE IN 2000 • STANDARDS DEVELOPED BY STEERING COMMITTEE

RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE • STANDARD 1: JUDGE AS LEADER IN COURT’S • • REPONSE TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE STANDARD 2: COURTHOUSE AS INFORMATION AND REFERRAL CENTER STANDARD 3: ACCESS TO CONTINUING EDUCATION STANDARD 4: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESPONSIBILITIES STANDARD 5: ORDERING TREATMENT

RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE (cont’d) • STANDARD 6: INDICATIONS OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE • STANDARD 7: SCREENING • STANDARD 8: CHEMICAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT • STANDARD 9: TREATMENT MATCHING • STANDARD 10: RECOMMENDATION TO STATE CORRECTIONAL AUTHORITIES

RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE (cont’d) • STANDARD 11: MANDATORY ABSTINENCE • STANDARD 12: MONITORING COMPLIANCE • STANDARD 13: RELAPSE • STANDARD 14: STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT PROVIDERS • STANDARD 15: TREATMENT DIRECTORY

RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT STANDARDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE (cont’d) • STANDARD 16: COMMUNITY RESOURCES • STANDARD 17: COMMUNICATION AND • • • COLLOBORATION WITHIN THE COURT AND WITH THE COMMUNITY STANDARD 18: USE OF THE COURTHOUSE FOR RECOVERY AND EDUCATION SESSIONS STANDARD 19: SUBSTANCE ABUSE WITHIN THE COURTS STANDARD 20: SUBSTANCE ABUSE AMONG ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY • Juvenile Substance Abuse Court (JSAC) • • Began in 2001 Target population: Ramsey County Resident, nonviolent offender, substance abuse problem, avoidance of out-of-home placement Cost-benefit analysis completed in 2006 Graduates had the lowest cost of any group averaging $12, 000 less than the comparison group over a two years. Comparison group costs were 41% higher per juvenile. JSAC Participants had significantly less contact with the court system after their participation including less than half the number of subsequent offenses; only 40% of the number of days in out-of-home placement and only half the number of days on probation.

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d) • Adult Substance Abuse Court (ASAC) Began in 2002 Target Population: Ramsey County resident, non-violent offender, substance abuse problem, felony level offenses (to include 5 th/4 th Degree drug offenses and other non-drug related case types) Length of program: 12 -24 months. • Traditionally 1 st/2 nd Degree drug cases excluded and 3 rd Degree considered on a case-by-case basis. • Initially very few methamphetamine addicts in program. Currently at least half indicate methamphetamine as their drug of choice. • Co-occurring disorders evident due to affects of methamphetamine. • Court Clinic created to address unmet mental health needs of this population.

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d) • • Total participants for ASAC from 2002 to present: 171 Successful completions and graduates: 44 Currently Active: 62 Over 90% of ASAC participants who stay in the program remain arrest free. Program retention rate is 83%. To date 10 drug-free babies have been born. ASAC has saved at least $750, 000 in jail bed savings. ASAC has saved at least $204, 400 in prison costs for one female participant.

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d) • Ramsey County DWI Court Began January, 2005 Target population: Ramsey County resident, charged by the City of St. Paul, three or more alcohol related driving offenses (Gross Misdemeanor), non-violent offender, substance abuse problem. Length of program: 24 months • Currently active: 25 • Successful completions and graduates: 2

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d) • Ramsey County Mental Health Court Began in 2005 Target Population: Ramsey County resident, Misdemeanor/Gross Misdemeanor charges, 3 or more law enforcement contacts in the last two years, diagnosis of SMI (serious mental illness). • Currently Active: 19 • Successful completions and graduates: 12

PROBLEM SOLVING COURTS IN RAMSEY COUNTY (cont’d) • Ramsey County Community Court Began in 2001 Target Population: Misdemeanor “livability” crimes including Underage Consumption cases.

PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE • COURTS AS PROBLEM SOLVERS • COURTS AS ADJUDICATORS

COURTS AS PROBLEM-SOLVERS “EFFECTIVE TRIAL COURTS ARE RESPONSIVE TO EMERGENT PUBLIC ISSUES SUCH AS DRUG ABUSE…A TRIAL COURT THAT MOVES DELIBERATELY IN RESPONSE TO EMERGENT ISSUES IS A STABILIZING FORCE IN SOCIETY AND ACTS CONSISTENTLY WITH ITS ROLE OF MAINTAINING THE RULE OF LAW” BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE’S TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, 1997

COURTS AS PROBLEM SOLVERS (cont’d) NATIONAL RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT THE NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION THE NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY ORGANIZATIONS GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY ASSOCIAITON MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM PUNISHMENT OR REHABILITATION

PRISON? 29. 9% of prisoners released in 1998 in 15 states were rearrested within six months and 68% were rearrested within three years. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002) 95% relapse to substance abuse in three years. (Treatment Research Institute, 2002)

PRISON? (cont’d) • Inmates Released 635, 000 from Federal • and State Prisons 473003, 1995 2001

TREATMENT? Attrition • 50% to 67% don’t show for intake • 40% to 80% drop out in 3 months • 90% drop out in 12 months Outcomes • 40% to 60% of clients abstinent at 1 year Treatment Research Institute, 2003

PUNISHMENT OR REHABILITATION • ANSWER IS BOTH---ALTHOUGH THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF PUNISHMENT SHOULD DEPEND UPON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CRIME

THE ANSWER • NEED TO DISTINQUISH BETWEEN THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT OFFENDER WHO IS AN ADDICT AND • THE ADDICT WHO COMMITS A NONVIOLENT CRIME BECAUSE OF THE DRUG ADDICTION

THE ANSWER (cont’d) • NEED TO LOCK UP THE VIOLENT AND REPEAT OFFENDER AND • EMPHASIZE TREATMENT ALONG WITH SANCTIONS AND INCENTIVES FOR THE LATTER

DRUG COURTS A National Phenomenon

DRUG COURTS - Need • A large percentage of criminal cases are AOD • • offenses, or AOD addiction is the underlying reason for the crime. Addiction to drugs or alcohol affects the offender’s family members, particularly children. Many drug addicted criminal offenders are polydrug users (meaning they use multiple drugs and alcohol). – Many also suffer from mental health problems.

DRUG COURTS - Definition What is a drug court? A specialized court that processes cases involving drugusing offenders through utilization of comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services and immediate sanctions and incentives. Types of drug courts: – Adult – Juvenile – Family – DWI

Drug Courts - Purpose • Designed to: – Provide greater system oversight and support for appropriate offenders – Emphasize treatment and rehabilitation with escalating sanctions for continuing alcohol or drug use – Bring hope back into the lives of addicted criminal offenders, allowing them a real opportunity to put their drug addiction and life of crime behind them.

Drug Courts Must Include Treatment Research Findings: • The length of time a patient spent in treatment was • a reliable predictor of his or her post-treatment performance. Beyond a ninety-day threshold, treatment outcomes improved in direct relationship to the length of time spent in treatment, with one year generally found to be the minimum effective duration of treatment. Coerced patients tended to stay longer. This was true even though most of the legally coerced addicts had more crime and gang involvement, more drug use, and worse employment records than their noncoerced counterparts.

DRUG COURTS - Benefits Correct implementation of drug courts: – Interrupts the cycle of recidivism of drug using offenders and helps them sustain recovery – Increases public safety by holding offenders accountable through increased supervision and drug testing – Results in all aspects of the criminal justice system working together for the benefit of both th public and the offender

DRUG COURTS - Benefits • Reduce criminal activity by addicted offenders. “The body of literature on recidivism is now strong enough to conclude that completing a drug court program reduces the likelihood of further involvement in the criminal justice system. ” Vera: Fluellen & Trone, 2000 Graduation is Key

DRUG COURTS - Benefits In addition to avoided criminal justice costs, Drug Courts result in: • • Avoided victim costs Improved public safety Fewer children in need of child protection and more drug-free babies Greater employability of offenders (which results in lower recidivism)

DRUG COURTS - Success “To put it bluntly, we know that drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been attempted for [high risk] drug-involved offenders. ” Marlowe, De. Matteo, Festinger (2003)

DRUG COURTS - Anticipated Outcomes • Improved outcomes for AOD offenders • • • – NY – 29% decrease in recidivism Reduction in costs – CA - $14 M investment avoided $43. 3 M cost Greater state-level collaboration regarding policy and funding allocation Ongoing evaluation and assessment of efforts

DRUG COURTS - Anticipated Outcomes (Cont’d) • Periodic performance measure reports • Greater statewide consistency through the establishment of standards and more centralized oversight

DRUG COURTS - Costs • Drug Courts save money – but not right away. – Example of front-end loading – Require a substantial initial investment – Most cost savings based on lower recidivism of participating offenders.

DRUG COURTS - Research “The re-conviction rate among a sample of almost 2, 500 drug court participants in six sites across New York State was, on average, 29% lower over three years after the initial arrest than the comparison group. ” 2003 Rempel, et. al.

DRUG COURTS - Research U. S. GAO 2005 Evaluation Review: • Lower rearrest and reconviction rates than comparison group members. • Fewer recidivism events/incidents than comparison group members. • Longer time intervals until re-arrest or reconviction than comparison group members. • Recidivism reductions in various categories of offenses. • Decreased involvement in substance abuse. • Positive cost/benefit ratio.

DRUG COURTS – Reduced Costs • New York - $254 million in incarceration costs were saved by diverting 18, 000 non-violent drug offenders. • Washington – Average drug court participant produced $6, 779 in benefits - $3, 759 in avoided criminal justice costs paid directly by taxpayers and $3, 020 in estimated avoided costs to victims

DRUG COURTS – Reduced Costs (cont’d) • California - Investment of $14 million created a total cost avoidance of $43. 3 million over a two-year period - 425, 014 jail days/$26 million cost and 27, 894 prison days/$13 million were avoided. • Multnomah County, Oregon - $10 saved for every $1 spent; $1, 521, 471

DRUG COURTS - National Movement • Began in 1989. By 2004 there were 1, 621 Drug Courts in operation in the United States, including: – 811 Adult Drug Courts – 357 Juvenile Drug Courts – 153 Family Dependency Treatment Courts – 176 DWI Courts – 54 Tribal Healing/Wellness Courts – 68 Re-entry Drug Courts – 1 Campus Drug Court – 1 Federal Drug Court

HISTORY STATE LEVEL • 2000 ---ALL MN. COURTS POLLED REGARDING STRATEGIC PRIORITIES • MN. JUDICIAL ADOPTED AS ONE OF TOP PRIORITIES “IMPACT OF AOD ISSUES ON COURTS”

HISTORY STATE LEVEL (cont’d) • MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT CREATION OF CHEMICAL • DEPENDENCY TASK FORCE MARCH, 2005 MEMBERSHIP: STATE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS, PUBLIC SAFETY, HUMAN SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, COUNTY SHERIFF, CHIEF OF POLICE, COURT ADMINISTRATORS, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, STATE SENATOR, JUDGES, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

PURPOSE 1. CONDUCT BACKGROUND RESEARCH ON SPECIFIC ISSUES CONCERNING AOD DEPENDENT PERSONS, PARTICULARLY AOD OFFENDERS 2. CONDUCT AND INVENTORY OF CURRENT MULTIAGENCY, STATE-LEVEL AOD EFFORTS IN MINNESOTA AS WELL AS IN OTHER STATES

PURPOSE (cont’d) 3. IDENTIFY AND RECOMMEND APPROACHES, SOLUTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION

REPORTS ADULT AND JUVENILE AOD OFFENDERS FEBRUARY, 2006 OVERALL IMPACT OF AOD ACROSS ALL CASE TYPES NOVEMBER, 2006

PHILSOPHICAL BASIS TASK FORCE ACCEPTED THAT ADDICTION IS A BRAIN DISEASE CHARACTERIZED BY COMPULSIVE, AT TIMES, UNCONTROLLABLE DRUG CRAVING, SEEKING AND USE THAT PERSIST EVEN IN THE FACE OF EXTREMELY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES. FOR MANY PEOPLE, DRUG ADDICTION BECOMES CHRONIC, WITH RELAPSES POSSIBLE EVEN AFTER LONG PERIODS OF ABSTINENCE. ALAN I. LESHNER, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE

RECOMMENDATIONS • IMPLEMENT PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES FOR ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS • IMPLEMENT PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES FOR OTHER CASE TYPES CHIPS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DWI OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT • RESTORATIVE JUSTICE/OTHER INTERVENTIONS • FUNDING AND RESOURCES • FEASIBILITY OF TAKING PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES STATEWIDE

KEY The Three C’s COLLABORATION, COORDINATION, AND COOPERATION

CURRENT PICTURE • MINNESOTA JUDICIAL BRANCH CREATED A DRUG COURT INITIATIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DCI) • PURPOSE AND CHARGE 1. OVERSEE AND ADVISE POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION A. B. C. D. E. DRUG COURT STANDARDS DRUG COURT GRANT DISTRIBUTION PROCESS AND STRUCTURE MUTI-DISCIPLINARY AND STATE-WIDE TRAINING KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR DRUG COURTS, EVALUATION, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (MIS) OTHER DUTIES AS ASSIGNED BY JUDICIAL COUNCIL

CURRENT PICTURE (cont’d) • STUDY OF FUNDING STREAMS AND SERVICE PROVISIONS TO MN. DWI & ADULT DRUG COURTS Ø Identify service & funding structures for drug courts compared to traditional case processing Ø Identify obstacles to optimal service delivery for drug courts compared to traditional case processing Ø Determine reasons for funding inequities Ø Recommend alternatives for funding & service structures Ø Develop a methodology for a cost-benefit analysis of MN drug courts

LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE • JUDICIAL BRANCH BUDGET REQUEST INCLUDES FUNDING FOR ALL CRITICAL JUSTICE PARTNERS FOR PROBLEM SOLVING APPROACHES • SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSION RECOMMENDED: 1. RE-RANK 1 ST AND 2 nd DEGREE OFFENSES AND 2. FUND THE JUDICIAL BRANCHES INITIATIVE FOR THE EXPANSION OF DRUG COURTS

CONTACT INFORMATION The Honorable Joanne M. Smith Judge of District Court 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 1530 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 651 -266 -9190